Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

while no one particular individual aspect of GW's creations are particularilly original gigantic bipedal churches with enough firepower to deem them a strategic asset are p original imo

Hellfury wrote:On the subject of GW originality though:

It is rather humorous how voraciously GW's defends its IP when one considers how truly little GW has actually created.

Quoted for truth. I couldn't agree more. I was reading Dune a while back and was disgusted at how many things were so wholly copy-and-pasted into 40K.

Perhaps they do it so that they can claim IP on other ideas they have plagiarized, as the originators let it slip away? Thus making GW, "original" atleast legally.

It reminds me of The Hitchikers guide to the galaxy where it talks about a portion of the guide being copied word for word from a cereal box that had fallen through a time hole from the future. The editors of the guide then sued the cereal company for copyright.

Their character naming is not original by any means. It's just about all a mixture of existing names (Asmodai), other languages (Carnifex), or other such things as ranks/titles (Hyrophant).

I do love 40k for the way it incorporates alot of existing ideas into their own brand of homogeneity. Like many types of innovation it is built on the concepts of the previous designer to make it better.

But I also think it is not quite fair to to say that GW is original at all. You mistake originality for "inspired and 'possibly' innovative derivation".

To be original, you must be distinctive from previous works. Not to combine them into your own brand to a point where its so obviously unoriginal that you don't even change the names. I posit that GW for the most part is so derivative, that it is really a stretch to consider the core basis of the majority of their fluff to be original.

It is quite possible to be original nowadays while being considerably less derivative.
I think that GW realizes this and is getting better at balancing how much they are cloning in comparison to how much originality they are creating in areas that they are expanding their portion of the genre. Sadly, squats were a casualty of that war.

Like I said, I enjoy GW's brand of fiction, as it expounds on what the previous person who inspired it wrote, but there is one area where GW could stand to gain in being original, and that is in their rules.

As a preemptive note:

Many people may view this as a negative attitude. Many people here also make it painfully obvious that they mistake criticism for negativity and make the two interchangeable.

Doctor Thunder wrote:I was reading Dune a while back and was disgusted at how many things were so wholly copy-and-pasted into 40K.

I wouldn't be too disgusted if I were you.

Dune has been lauded as one of the best sci-fi's ever written. Since "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery", 40K solidifies how good Frank Herbert was at writing an truly original work.

I don't think that it is bad for 40K to be unoriginal. In fact, I believe it to be one of its stronger points.

The reason being is that is is much easier for people to get into a game where they are somehow already familiar with the background on some level.

I would be willing to bet that Bryan Ansell thought of this when he made "Laserburn" (rogue trader's predecessor) and incorporated so much from previous bodies of works. Bryan was a very shrewd business man and I think he realized that for the purposes of getting a majority of people into the game, it was necessary for the game to be more widely acceptable.

Pariah Press wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Actually the walking cathedral fortress is similar to the God Warriors of Nausicca of the Valley of Wind, Howl's Moving Castle and so on.

Well, the God Warriors didn't really resemble 40K Titans, except that they were big robots. Howl's Moving Castle came out recently, so obviously could not have inspired Titans.

The film was recent, the book it was based on was published in the mid-80s, before Titans were invented. (Actually the reason for inventing Titans was because Battletlech was so popular. GW wanted a walking robot tanks game and did it in "dark future gothic" style.)

"Actually the reason for inventing Titans was because Battletlech was so popular. GW wanted a walking robot tanks game and did it in "dark future gothic" style."

Yah but you have to admit they did do it in style.

Style. That's the thing. GW's concepts may be a mish-mash of easily-identifiable cultural references, but they have a very unique visual style. 40K looks like nothing previous, due to the contributions of such artists as John Blanche, Ian Miller, Jes Goodwin, etc. I can spot a piece of Warhammer art from half a room away, even if I've never seen it before.

Kilkrazy wrote:Actually the reason for inventing Titans was because Battletlech was so popular. GW wanted a walking robot tanks game and did it in "dark future gothic" style.

Do we have any solid source on this or is it just a common belief? I don't really know one way or the other, I'm just asking.

Nothing in 40K is particularly original taken by itself. Genetically engineered supermen, giant walking robots of doom, ratmen, none of it really.

But taking characters and monsters from across genre fiction and creating a couple of semi-coherent universes is something closer to an original creation. If you then create models for those creatures and produce rulesets to have those models fight each other… that’s an original creation.

And GW knows all this by the way, it blows my mind when people try to point out that GW’s model lines come from a long line of genre writing as though it’s a big secret. The company is quite open that tyranids are about letting you play bug invaders from beyond universe like in those 50s sci fi movies, for example.

Ahtman wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Actually the reason for inventing Titans was because Battletlech was so popular. GW wanted a walking robot tanks game and did it in "dark future gothic" style.

Do we have any solid source on this or is it just a common belief? I don't really know one way or the other, I'm just asking.

Adeptus titanicus was first made in 1988, while Battletech was first made in 1984.
They might have have made this game in response to the popularity of Battletech, which in turn also borrowed mech concepts from macross illegally. Hence the insane prices for very early macross styled battletech miniatures.

Both games revolved around rock em sock em robot style combat.

Ratbarf wrote:"Actually the reason for inventing Titans was because Battletlech was so popular. GW wanted a walking robot tanks game and did it in "dark future gothic" style."

Yah but you have to admit they did do it in style.

The first version, Adeptus Titanicus, was rubbish. I don't know how it developed after that.

Hellfury wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Actually the reason for inventing Titans was because Battletlech was so popular. GW wanted a walking robot tanks game and did it in "dark future gothic" style.

Do we have any solid source on this or is it just a common belief? I don't really know one way or the other, I'm just asking.

Adeptus titanicus was first made in 1988, while Battletech was first made in 1984.
They might have have made this game in response to the popularity of Battletech, which in turn also borrowed mech concepts from macross illegally. Hence the insane prices for very early macross styled battletech miniatures.

Both games revolved around rock em sock em robot style combat.

To be fair to FASA, they thought they had acquired the right to use the Macross and Dougram designs derived from the Robotech TV series, but actually there was a licencing cock-up.

Macross/Robotech was the first mecha series really popular in the USA however there had been plenty of previous giant robot type anime in Japan, some of which were exported to Europe -- these others usually featured single combat rather than a war situation.

FASA took the basic designs and completely wrote the rules. They were popular enough that within a few years the basic set was followed by Aerotech, Mechwarrior RPG, a city fighting game, scenario packs, posters, Tech manuals, loads of miniatures and so on. Exactly the kind of franchise that GW like and have built up in 40K, and overlapping the target userbase of tabletop SF gamers.

Then Adeptus Titanicus appeared.

Whilst I have no documentary evidence, such as a memo from Steve Livingstone to Bryan Ansell telling him to get a walking robot tank game out because B'Tech is going gangbusters, the circumstantial evidence is pretty compelling.

legoburner wrote:The concept of the warp as a place where souls/psychics have a presence, where people's souls go to die, and as well as this, the warp as faster-than-light mode of travel seems to be original to me. Has anybody seen that beyond warp-speed travel anywhere else?

B5 had hyperspace as well (I think it was called hyperspace). A lot of that was similar actually. Without beacons you would get lost forever, that sort of thing.OTT but Earth Destroyers are a nice comparable to BFG cruisers.

Kilgore Trout once wrote a book where the engines of
spaceships were powered by the stars in another universe.

Eventually they ran out of stars.

This is why I dont think it is a bad thing that GW have borrowed from so many sources. I have certainly had a lot of exposure to things that would have otherwise passed me by simply because I heard of them through GW and it's influences, and I do not know if I would have come across those things without GW since I got into 40k at a fairly young age.

jfrazell wrote:

legoburner wrote:The concept of the warp as a place where souls/psychics have a presence, where people's souls go to die, and as well as this, the warp as faster-than-light mode of travel seems to be original to me. Has anybody seen that beyond warp-speed travel anywhere else?

B5 had hyperspace as well (I think it was called hyperspace). A lot of that was similar actually. Without beacons you would get lost forever, that sort of thing.OTT but Earth Destroyers are a nice comparable to BFG cruisers.

Star Wars has Hyperspace as well, and calls it such.

jfrazell wrote:B5 had hyperspace as well (I think it was called hyperspace). A lot of that was similar actually. Without beacons you would get lost forever, that sort of thing.OTT but Earth Destroyers are a nice comparable to BFG cruisers.

What, like this?

Pah! Your puny Membari White stars cannot stand against the might of Slaughter Class Cruiser! Hail Hydra!


Who are you and what do YOU want?

Well, there's the obvious derivative one. FTL in 40k means going through "the warp", vs Star Trek's using their "warp drive" for FTL travel.

Also, I just thought of something about the walking fortress's of destruction. The original SDF-1 anyone?

I worded my post badly... What I meant was that although there are many instances of FTL travel (in things like star trek, star wars, etc), it was the combination of that 'warp space' with a place for souls and demons that I was curious about.

legoburner wrote:I worded my post badly... What I meant was that although there are many instances of FTL travel (in things like star trek, star wars, etc), it was the combination of that 'warp space' with a place for souls and demons that I was curious about.

Ironically, they cribbed that bit straight from the fountainhead of all things good: Asimov. In "I, Robot" one of the short stories involves a powerful robotic brain that freaks out about designing the first hyperdrive. The reason is that while people are in "hyperspace," they effectively don't exist and thus experience, in vivid detail, a form of death. One of the characters literally thinks he's in hell for the duration of the trip.

Of course, in ancient myth it wasn't uncommon to "descend to the underworld," where the "souls of the dead and monsters await" to "shorten journies." My point is, what the hell sort of originality does anybody actually want? the Pan-fo were original!

I had a friend once who talked about how there are only so many stories, and every story told is just a variation on those themes. I forget what they all were, but I have a different theory: that the only story worth telling is "boy becomes a man." Sure, it's probably better phrased as "a person, in overcoming obstacles learns more about himself and/or the world" but I like boy becomes a man better. Whether the Illiad or the Lord of the Rings, the best stories always involve personal growth.

In a similar vein, GW's stuff is cribbed from all over, notably from Dune. Of course, since that's mostly a re-telling of the Arab Revolt with a herbert stand in with psychedlic visions and a god complex replacing TE Lawrence, I'm not that moved. I love dune, but the mishmosh of ideas are pretty easy to trace back. "Feudalism! IN SPACE!!!!!" "This desert culture controls a powerful commodity that basically enables travel and trade. No, it's nothing like oil at all. shut up, it's DRUGS!!!!!!" And while personal body shields that only allow slow things to penetrate might be original (and allow for wicked awesome sword fights,) Seriously WTF???? I dont' even want to guess at those physics.

Ratbarf wrote:Hey, Episode one wasn't bad at all, in fact I think it was the best of the series.

Now you're just trolling.

The bits with Qui Gon Jin in them are very good, Liam Neeson brings similar qualities to the role that Alec Guinness brought to the original. Sadly these scenes are totally let down by the rest of the film.

40k's Strength is its willingness to crib from everything, bear in mind that 40k's fluff is just a setting in which to fight battles. Although it is a little galling when their pop culture references are so poorly blended (hidden).

Hellfury wrote:

Doctor Thunder wrote:I was reading Dune a while back and was disgusted at how many things were so wholly copy-and-pasted into 40K.

I wouldn't be too disgusted if I were you.

Dune has been lauded as one of the best sci-fi's ever written. Since "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery", 40K solidifies how good Frank Herbert was at writing an truly original work.

I don't think that it is bad for 40K to be unoriginal. In fact, I believe it to be one of its stronger points.

The reason being is that is is much easier for people to get into a game where they are somehow already familiar with the background on some level.

I would be willing to bet that Bryan Ansell thought of this when he made "Laserburn" (rogue trader's predecessor) and incorporated so much from previous bodies of works. Bryan was a very shrewd business man and I think he realized that for the purposes of getting a majority of people into the game, it was necessary for the game to be more widely acceptable.

This series of books seems to have provided some inspiration, though with the publication dates, there may have been some cross-pollination going on too...

Still, a great read, if you haven't already!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sten_Adventures

"Now you're just trolling."

Am not, The Phantom Menace was probably the best of the whole series. Then followed by the Empire Strikes Back, A New Hope, Return of the Jedi, Revenge of the Sith, and Attack of the Clones.

Qui Gon Jin is my hero... and Darth Maul is probably one of the coolest baddies in the universe. (plus he brought dual bladed lightsabers to a lot of games!)

Alpharius wrote: though with the publication dates, there may have been some cross-pollination going on too...

Highly unlikely.

Dune was first published in 1965, and most of the prevalent concepts 40K borrowed from that univers were first printed in God emperor of dune in 1981.
Chapterhouse dune, Herberts last book was published in 1985.

While laserburn was published in 1980, it didn't include any of the Dunesque elements (God emperor, suspensors, etc.) found in Rogue trader printed in 1987.

Fredric Jameson (Marxist philosopher/cultural critic) would say that GW is a product of late capitalistic, or postmodern, culture and therefore incapable of original ideas- rather only pastiche.

Jameson even cites Star Wars, like other posters here, as doing the same.

And that's what I see most GW products as, a pastiche of all the "cool stuff" the designers liked or read. It may not even be a conscious move, but definitely pastiche. I don't see this as plagiarism, rather the originality is how the influences are placed together.

Hellfury wrote:On the subject of GW originality though:

It is rather humorous how voraciously GW's defends its IP when one considers how truly little GW has actually created.
(Rogue trade was really cool, but make no illusions, it was heavily influenced by, and in some cases completely plagiarized from various popular fictional sources)

But then again, if you don't defend IP, then you lose it.

Which brings me to why GW is so zealous about that issue.

Perhaps they do it so that they can claim IP on other ideas they have plagiarized, as the originators let it slip away? Thus making GW, "original" atleast legally.

First, I think it's a bit strong to say they plagiarized ideas, say rather "inspired". But that does (to an extent) explain their vigor in protecting their property; the more common, genre elements you use in your IP, the shallower your protection ends up. We can't, though, so easily dismiss what GW (though it's authors) has accomplished.

Clearly, Space marines and tyranids owe a lot to Heinlein's Startship Troupers, but even as close as there ideas are on some level, on another level they are very distinct. there is a book (the name of which I cannot for the life of me remember at the moment...) that posits that there are only something like 7 narrative arcs, endlessly retold, with the genius of the author in the telling. Just a few days ago, I saw an article where one author claimed that JK Rowling had cribbed from his work, justifying that comment with a synopses that fit both Harry Potter and his own material... except it also fits everything from Star Wars to Eragon (no surprise there). It's the things that fill in from the macro level components that make one book a dud, one profitable and one a world wide publishing phenomenon.

I mean, you can make a strong case that space marines are simply medievial knights crossed with space suits by way of dark ages plague doctor suits (the spiritual father of the beaky marine, anyone?). But so what? Those sources have been around (literally) for ages; in the 30's we had Lensman, in the 50s we had Startship Troopers, in the 70s Stormtroopers and in the 80s 40K. All involve many common elements, yet all have still more uncommon element, all are very different in tone, message and imagery.

So in a way there is very little originality, but a lot of distinctiveness, creativity and, yes, even a few completely new ideas (I'm sure they are there, I just can't think of them).

but the tyranids look nothing like the original designs of the bugs in starship troopers